91–100 of 138 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are already trespassing laws which prevent that. This is just plain thuggery.
I don't understand what you mean by "thuggery" here. Can you explain?
2. Trespassing here could uncover more serious crimes that are happening.
3. Somebody lobbied a bunch of politicians to make trespassing a very serious offense to deter people from uncovering a more serious crime.
Part 3 is the thuggery.
Of all things, you would think that the first amendment would protect such a thing, can any lawyer weight on that? > The measure passed Idaho’s Senate earlier in February to the applause of agricultural representatives who said it would help ensure farmers’ right to privacy. There is a certain irony in the US that everyone can get privacy, except private citizen.
This is similar to the tort of public disclosure of private facts. (Libel protects me against you lying about me, but this tort protects against you publicizing my strange hobbies or sexual practices or other private practices so long as, and this is huge, there's no public interest). I know Idaho was a late adopter to the tort, while many other states committed the tort to statute. They may just be coming around. Th…
Aren't there Federal statutes that lay out what animal abuse is? I know the Law views animals as property, but in regards to dogs,cats, etc. there are rules about how you treat them. Do bovine, equine, and poultry animals not fall under these protections?
Obviously i could be completely off base...
Of all things, you would think that the first amendment would protect such a thing, can any lawyer weight on that? > The measure passed Idaho’s Senate earlier in February to the applause of agricultural representatives who said it would help ensure farmers’ right to privacy. There is a certain irony in the US that everyone can get privacy, except private citizen.
This is similar to the tort of public disclosure of private facts. (Libel protects me against you lying about me, but this tort protects against you publicizing my strange hobbies or sexual practices or other private practices so long as, and this is huge, there's no public interest). I know Idaho was a late adopter to the tort, while many other states committed the tort to statute. They may just be coming around. Th…
> That said, some facts aren't merely private matters. If leading public figures are violating the law or lying to constituents or abusing their family, the public has a right to know.
Is the "Public right to know" a high bar to pass? Would the footage be legal if for example, the farmer has said its meat was "100% without animal cruelty" or if animal cruelty was detrimental to the meat?
Of all things, you would think that the first amendment would protect such a thing, can any lawyer weight on that? > The measure passed Idaho’s Senate earlier in February to the applause of agricultural representatives who said it would help ensure farmers’ right to privacy. There is a certain irony in the US that everyone can get privacy, except private citizen.
I consider myself a far left liberal and I certainly don't condone abusing farm animals. However, taking a paying job under falsified pretenses with a made up resume and then spending your working hours secretly filming internal operations for future public release with the sole goal of harming your employer, that is just sketchy. If you believe in the cause so much that you call it war - well understood. But protect…
Indeed, what do animal rights groups feel on this? No law is going to stop me from treating fellow humans with respect, and according that same respect to all life forms reliant on Humanity. I would not own slaves regardless of the Law [New England blood, we don't do that shit]. I would not litter if it was mandated by ordinance. I will not hate another religion or culture because our Dear Leader says they are evil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As reprehensible as the abuse was, this not a First Amendment issue: farms are private property. It's the same way you can throw someone out of your house for saying things you don't like and they can't claim their First Amendment rights are being violated.
My first amendment rights would be violated if I was arrested and jailed for a year for saying something in your house you didn't like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, a lot of people don't have a lot of faith in the institutional processes (cf. Deepwater Horizon, many other regulatory failures), and don't want to wait around for a serendipitous happenstance, that doesn't seem very reliable. And yeah, there is a fine line between "exposing wrongdoing" and "interfering with legal business operations," and an activist might not always know which side they will fall on, but I wo…
This isn't very difficult to do. Take 100K. Hire private investigators to find people who work at the place in question and who are not happy. Pay these people for affidavits stating that animal cruelty goes on. Based on that sworn testimony, go to a federal prosecutor and get a warrant. Take the warrant and gather evidence. Or, start a civil action and begin discovery. This kind of thing is done all the time. But yo…
>Take 100K.
Are you serious?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I consider myself a far left liberal and I certainly don't condone abusing farm animals. However, taking a paying job under falsified pretenses with a made up resume and then spending your working hours secretly filming internal operations for future public release with the sole goal of harming your employer, that is just sketchy. If you believe in the cause so much that you call it war - well understood. But protect…
I draw the line at illegality. Activists filming distasteful but legal processes are sketchy. Activists filming animal abuse in cases where the government turns a blind eye should be encouraged. Ideally the government would perform this function, but I don't see that happening.
For example near where I live there is a "slaughterhouse" that use the same techniques as other similar slaughterhouses but the one near me gets a lot of press and outrage.
The slaughterhouse I refer to is open to the outside it's on ice and it's seals not cow, bulls, pigs or chickens but it's the same process a bash on the head and then chop up the carcass. It just seems worse due to red blood on white ice and being out in the open not in a building.
Of all things, you would think that the first amendment would protect such a thing, can any lawyer weight on that? > The measure passed Idaho’s Senate earlier in February to the applause of agricultural representatives who said it would help ensure farmers’ right to privacy. There is a certain irony in the US that everyone can get privacy, except private citizen.
This is similar to the tort of public disclosure of private facts. (Libel protects me against you lying about me, but this tort protects against you publicizing my strange hobbies or sexual practices or other private practices so long as, and this is huge, there's no public interest). I know Idaho was a late adopter to the tort, while many other states committed the tort to statute. They may just be coming around. Th…
I just want to say though that wrt
> ...are violating the law...the public has a right to know.
There may not be a legal obligation for the public to know, if no violation of the law has occurred, however just because something isn't illegal, does not make it right (abusing animals)
I know that reasoning does not hold from a legal standpoint, but without standing up to unjust laws, the civil rights movement, or marriage equality, and even gender equality would have been severely hampered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I consider myself a far left liberal and I certainly don't condone abusing farm animals. However, taking a paying job under falsified pretenses with a made up resume and then spending your working hours secretly filming internal operations for future public release with the sole goal of harming your employer, that is just sketchy. If you believe in the cause so much that you call it war - well understood. But protect…
Which is worse: taking a job under false pretenses, or abusing animals? The balance of the good seems clear to me.
FWIW however, I am a big proponent of exposing animal cruelty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about your house. This law concerns farms only.
A farm is Somebody's house. I live on one for instance. While we don't torture animals, keep your cameras out of my space anyway thank you.
Your farm is not a house, it is a farm. A house that might happen to sit on the same land parcel is of absolutely no interest to anyone. Your private life simply is not that interesting.
Your commercial operations, which occur outside the house, are an entirely different matter.